Contact your U.S. Representatives on Transfer of Public Lands Issue.

[npaden]

Okay, this is coming from some of the discussion on the Western Sportsmen's Alliance thread. One thing I think we can all (or at least most of us) can agree on is keeping public lands public and accessible. If you would like to email your U.S. Representatives on the subject here's a way to do that.

Here's a place to look up your House of Representative's email address.

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

Here's a list of the Senators email addresses.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I don't have a slick professionally prepared email that you can copy and paste and send out, but I will share the one that I sent.

Dear Mr. Cruz,

I'm writing to you to let you know that I am strongly opposed to any transfer of public lands to state control or sale to private interests.

These public lands are one of the greatest treasures that our country has, and should be retained for the benefit of both present and future generations of Americans.

When this topic is discussed, please look to the long term consequences of any privatization of public lands and the potential of misuse or privatization once federal lands are transferred to state control. This is a very complex issue that might sound good off the cuff, but when you really look deeply into it would be devastating for future generations.

Please let me know that you will do everything in your power to oppose the transfer of public lands.

Thanks, Nathan Paden

One thing that is concerning is that the email form for Mr. Cruz had about 20 different topics that he would be expecting to hear from his constituents on. Animal Welfare, Environment, Monetary Policy, you name it. But Conservation was no where on the list so I selected Other for the topic. I would guess that's the case for the vast majority of elected officials except a few western states. Maybe we can change that if we all pitch in and start sending emails.

If anyone has a better worded letter or any other information to add that would be great. If you can think of any other people that it would be worth contacting please let us know.

Thanks, Nathan

 

[Big Fin]

Good stuff, Nathan. This topic is rising on the list of many in Congress, so the more they (staffers) hear about it, the more they know they had best tread carefully when supporting/opposing legislation related to this.

Using the links Nathan provided will be helpful for anyone wanting to contact they delegates in Congress. In fact, I might just copy and paste that part of his email and make it a "sticky" post in the Sportsmens Issues forum

 

[idnative1948]

Just fired one off to Congressman Simpson, Senator Crapo, Senator Risch.

 

[mthillrunner]

I emailed Daines and Tester several months ago. Testers response was that he agrees that states taking control of federal lands was a bad idea. Daines office essentially said , you don't know what's best, we do so don't you worry about it. Daines response was that states should manage federal land as they would know how to better manage the resources within. I specifically asked what would prevent states from then selling the land to make up for budget short falls. They did not address that question.

 

[Nameless Range]

Ok, I am not trying to be a pessimist here, but I genuinely question whether letters to our representatives matter in the slightest.

Having written a fair amount of letters to my representatives, I have a feeling their reception of letters goes something like this:

-Letter/email arrives and is sorted by topic and by support for or opposition to

-Canned, prewritten response is sent

-Representative continues to do what they were going to do anyway, based on polls/projections and whether or not they think they can get away with it.

Granted, I've never worked in politics or spoken with a representative candidly. But mthillrunner's experience is incredibly similar to mine.

It seems that the aggregate potential vote is the only input from the masses that matter to Representatives, and letters and comments are not a good indicator of the former.

 

[npaden]

You are probably right, and as BigFin mentioned the best case scenario is that some staffer sees maybe the subject line and at least it rings a bell if it gets discussed at some point in the future. Maybe they log it as a for or against type thing once enough are received on the same subject.

But it is better than nothing.

If everyone has the attitude that it isn't worth doing then one or two emails on the subject probably are not going to do much good. If they get 25 emails on the subject, they might start to take notice. If they get 1,000 emails on the same subject, it might even make a bullet point on that day's briefing.

I guess I'll go post this over on Monster Muley's as well.

 

[Nameless Range]

You are right that it is better than nothing and it is easy to do. Perhaps they do pay attention.

I think for the sake of record, organizing ones' thoughts, and, as you pointed out, potentially influencing their own discussion, if you care about or have an opinion on something your representatives are doing you should let them know via letter/email.

I don't want to come off as saying it's a waste of time.

 

[samh]

Decisions are made by those who show up. I don't always agree with the response I receive from Daines or Tester but I know I've at least put one more bug in their ear for consideration.

 

[smarandr]

I emailed Daines and Tester several months ago. Testers response was that he agrees that states taking control of federal lands was a bad idea. Daines office essentially said , you don't know what's best, we do so don't you worry about it. Daines response was that states should manage federal land as they would know how to better manage the resources within. I specifically asked what would prevent states from then selling the land to make up for budget short falls. They did not address that question.

I have a question: There's obviously a big difference between changing ownership and changing management. However, in all of these state "control" of federal lands discussions, ownership and management seem to be used interchangeably. I know there's a lot of people that want an ownership change, but when it comes to the elected representatives are they saying "states manage" or are they saying "states ownership?"

 

[Big Fin]

Ok, I am not trying to be a pessimist here, but I genuinely question whether letters to our representatives matter in the slightest.

Having written a fair amount of letters to my representatives, I have a feeling their reception of letters goes something like this:

-Letter/email arrives and is sorted by topic and by support for or opposition to

-Canned, prewritten response is sent

-Representative continues to do what they were going to do anyway, based on polls/projections and whether or not they think they can get away with it.

I agree with what you have written above; at least for the first time an unfamiliar topic is mentioned in a comment they get via the web portal. Then, once they get two, or three, or a dozen about the topic, things kind of go like this.

Senator's Chief of Staff/Policy Adviser to Staffer - "Get your butt on the phone and start finding out more about what is raising a stir on this issue."

Staffer - "Yes Sir/Mam."

Comments continue to come in over time, kind of categorized on the same topic. Then it goes something like this.

Senator's Chief of Staff to staff Policy Adviser on the topic- "What the hell is going on back home. We're getting a bunch of comments on this same topic for the last couple months. I want the download on that, ASAP."

Comments continue to come in over a longer period of time, categorized to be on the same topic. Then it goes something like this.

Chief of Staff to Senator - "Senator, we've got an uprising going on out there on this topic. What are your thoughts on the topic? I've got a staff Policy Adviser working on it. I'll get you the dope on it by tomorrow."

Senator to Chief of Staff - (depends upon if the Senator thinks they know it all or if they are actually the kind who listens and tries to represent)

Trust me, it makes a difference. We all get the form letter reply when we send the comments through that web portal.

Yet, I can assure you that if Senators and Congressmen continue to get letters on this issues, some people who are regulars on this forum and others who are lurkers will be getting phone calls from DC. Those calls will go something like this;

Staffer - "Hey John Doe, we've been get a pile of comments on this topic. Senator wants to make sure we understand it from your perspective. Can you give me some more insight as to what the hell is this all about?"

Or if the Senator/Congressman is already engaged on the issue and calls personally, "Let me and my staff know how we can help on this topic. Not happening on my watch."

And if you really want to hit it home with them, tell them in person. Next time they are at a big event shaking hands and kissing babies, shake their hand and tell them your thoughts. Be quick and concise. They often have a string of staffers trailing behind with the task of taking notes from people who give them comments in person.

I know it sounds like a 9th grade civics class exercise, but it really does make a big difference.

 

[Big Fin]

I have a question: There's obviously a big difference between changing ownership and changing management. However, in all of these state "control" of federal lands discussions, ownership and management seem to be used interchangeably. I know there's a lot of people that want an ownership change, but when it comes to the elected representatives are they saying "states manage" or are they saying "states ownership?"

They use them interchangeably, depending upon who they are talking to. Control sounds more assertive and less disruptive, so they use that term. Control doesn't give the connotation that you will then be responsible for the liabilities if this doesn't work out. A well polished way of stating they want to take over ownership.

When you read any of the legislation they propose, they make it clear they are talking about ownership. They use the terms like "ownership" or "transfer title" or ....

Summary - they are talking about "State ownership."

 

[smarandr]

Thanks, that's pretty much what I expected. Now, I'll draft my letter accordingly.

 

[kansasdad]

I know it sounds like a 9th grade civics class exercise, but it really does make a big difference.

Randy, you absolutely nailed the process with your answer and your examples.

I called a family member who has worked for House, Senate and Oval Office folks......"it's all about passion". One person writing one letter won't make very much of impression on any staffer. It's about the NUMBER of people that are fired up about something and the amount of FIRE/PASSION about the subject at hand that will get the message to the suit in the back of the office suite.......the Honorable Represetative/Senator Blow Your Own Horn.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Awesome, Nathan. Thank you.

Letters, emails and phone calls matter. Especially the personal ones. Form letters are ignored.

 

[Corax]

Most people do not bother to write their representatives - those that do obviously care, and the letters are important.

I have expressed my views to Senator Cruz in the past, and will do so again. Your post is a reminder that I am due.

Help me out here - what was the bill where Cruz introduced a gun rights amendment (guaranteed to tie up the bill) onto one of the public lands bills recently? He is not my favorite.

 

[Big Fin]

Help me out here - what was the bill where Cruz introduced a gun rights amendment (guaranteed to tie up the bill) onto one of the public lands bills recently? He is not my favorite.

The bill was S.2363 - The Bipartisan Sportsman Act of 2014

From his website ......

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1502

Sen. Cruz Files Amendments to Sportsmen’s Act Legislation
MEASURES STRENGTHEN SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND LIMIT FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF LAND

July 8, 2014 | (202) 228-7561
WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today filed three amendments to Sportsmen’s Act legislation to strengthen Americans’ Second Amendment rights and to limit federal ownership of land.

 

[Corax]

Thank you. I have to admit I voted for him - I also need to do more homework before the next election.

Senator Cruz has proved himself to be a true friend of Senator Cruz.

 

[PatrickK]

I will start by saying that I am not a fan of transferring lands to state control and I doubt I ever will be. I like having vast swaths of land that I (and everyone else) can enjoy.

There are 5 states with 50% or greater federal land ownership. Nevada is almost 85% federal lands. Utah, Oregon, and Idaho are in the mid to low 50's. If Idaho had to get under 50% the feds would have to give Idaho or otherwise sell, 0.3 percent of the land in Idaho.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that no more than 50 percent of the land in a state be owned by the feds.

Patrick

 

[JoseCuervo]

I will start by saying that I am not a fan of transferring lands to state control and I doubt I ever will be. I like having vast swaths of land that I (and everyone else) can enjoy.

There are 5 states with 50% or greater federal land ownership. Nevada is almost 85% federal lands. Utah, Oregon, and Idaho are in the mid to low 50's. If Idaho had to get under 50% the feds would have to give Idaho or otherwise sell, 0.3 percent of the land in Idaho.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that no more than 50 percent of the land in a state be owned by the feds.

Patrick

Other than the fact the nonsense 50% number is arbitrary, based on nothing, and makes no sense.

Spend some time on the poorly managed lands owned by the State of Idaho, you will see how poor the likes of Butch Otter, and his new band of incompetent managers on the State Land Board the Goofball Sherri Ybarra and the anti-hunting Lawerence Denney.

Hell, listen to the radio in Idaho, and there are advertisements flooding the airwaves promoting another auction of land from the State of Idaho this month.

For a civics exercise, go read the Constitution of the State of Idaho and see what the SOLE objective of the State Land Board is REQUIRED to be. (Hint: It sure as hell ain't anything that benefits hunters.)

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

What took ya'll so long? This has been out there for quite some time and my letter went out months ago. Let's step it up soldiers! I love the smell of E-mails in the morning! John